Danish, I am really surprised that you are not familiar with Marshall McLuhan. Not only is he a famous Canadian intellectual (much like yourself ), but he coined the phrase "The medium is the message." I'm sure you've got lots to say on this topic besides just starting the thread, and you'll probably find plenty of info from McLuhan's works and his followers (like Neil Postman).

I'm not familiar with that Marshall McLuhan. I'm in the midst of a paper on this topic, so you're right, I do have a lot to say on the topic other than just starting the thread. I'm just too busy writing to put together a good post. I also didn't want to use the thread as a pulpit, as they say.

So far, the person I agree with the most in this thread is... Dboon. Media corporations are just that - corporations. They are in the business of making money, not growing a healthy democratic society (which is what the media ought to do).

So, I'd like to pose another question (it's a bit of a trick question):

Marriage isn't necessarily a definite outcome for any of my relationships, though all of my relationships will be mainly built off of how we relate personally, so in essence if I ever do get married then yes, I'll base getting married off of that.

Of course, I don't consider it being "friends with benefits". In my opinion, if you are actually best friends with a partner who you find exceptionally attractive, that's when that dirty word "love" comes into the picture.

How exactly can the media promote the growth of a healthy democratic society?

I'm so glad you asked!

Fundamentally, the most important element of a democratic society is freedom of information. In order to be politically engaged, one must have access to information about the world outside of their immediate surroundings. Likewise, interaction with others and discussion about issues promote political activity. A wide, open discourse is absolutely necessary for a healthy democracy.

There is this concept in democratic political theory called "the town square." It harks back to the days of Ancient Athens, when citizens would gather in the public marketplace to debate and discuss the issues of the day. Every democratic society in history has had their public squares (ie. the Bostonian Town Hall, etc.). In a country like Canada, with 30 million people spread across a vast landmass, such a national public meeting place can only be achieved through broadcasting (the same is true in the US). This is only compounded by the expansion of globalization and international affairs, where events taking place on the other side of the world definately involve us.

A free and open media can and must be that town square. In Canada, this is (arguably) fulfilled by the CBC; in Britain, the BBC. As the only window to the outside world, the media is crucial to our understanding of our society.

I'm sure this will be of no suprise to any of you, but I think the media in Western society fails dismally to fulfill this role. Instead, a privately-owned media that is utterly dependent on advertising revenue presents a worldview that doesn't democratize, but narrows the discourse and presents an ideology favourable to maintain present power structures.

I'm still a little uncertain what shape this media 'town square' would ideally take. What about the BBC do you think of as positive?

I don't really know a lot about the BBC, so I can't comment about it directly. I do know, however, that the CBC was built on the British model (BBC).

The CBC, as a public broadcaster, is able to serve the needs of Canadians regardless of profitability. For instance, where it would be highly unprofitable to put a TV or radio station in a remote town of 500 in the Yukon, the CBC can because they have institutional principles and responsibilities that don't include the bottom line.

However, things are getting harder and harder for the CBC. Over the past 16 years, their budget has been slashed significantly and they now rely on advertising revenue for 1/3 of their budget, seriously compromising their ability to focus on their principles.

I suppose PBS/NPR in the US has had a similar experience, though the corporate media there is much much more power. I would like to note, though, that Canada has perhaps the worst media ownership concentration in the industrialized world.

I concur. In Quebec a lot of medias are concentrated under Power Corporation and Quebecor Media. In the last few years, also, I've been hearing about Astral Media and Corus (Corus is from Alberta, Astral is based in Montreal)